TORT 1.9 TRESPASS PER SE
Under this one, all that needs to be shown is that the defendant willfully interfered with the chattel in possession of the plaintiff. The defendant need not take the goods away. See Davies v. Lagos City Council. Ogiugo and Sons v. Cop, **Fouldes V. Willoughby. In Gwk V. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd. Slater V. Swann.
– In conversion and detinue there must be taking away. But mere interference with goods would suffice in trespass per se-Fouldes v. Wiloughby;
– Deprivation must be present in conversion but it is not necessary in trespass per se
– Detinue mandates that a demand must have been made by the plaintiff. Others do not require demand to be made.
 National Coal Board V. Evens Co. Trespass to chattel is not a strict liability intention or negligence should be proved. An accident cannot arise to trespass to chattel.
Erivo V. Obi the defendant respondent closed the door of the appellants car and the side windscreen got broken As inevitable accident was a defense.
 Possession is needed at the time of the trespass. Except;
- A trustee may sue one that trespasses with the goods of the beneficiary.
- An executor and administrator may sue for trespass to chattel of the deceased before he is granted probate or letter of administration.
- The owner of a franchise can claim against anyone who seizes the goods before he can take them.
Finders, caretakers, Bailee, custodians, assignees, ledgers, and so on can also sue.
 Please do not forget that chattels are moveable. In the exam don’t make a mistake.
 Removing a tyre from the plaintiff’s car and replacing it with another tyre was held to be trespass.
 The court held that beating of the plaintiff’s animal amounted to trespass to chattel.